> My point about winex is that all this patching trading > would not be necessary if they were using wine from > winehq (and not from rewind) and letting their implementation of > d3d, safe disc to be just as mudules/dlls to the wine. > > All required changes to the "core" wine would have to be LGPLed > but this wouldn't be a problem, would it? > I agree with d3d. but i'am not sure about copy protection. is that entirely done on dll level ?? if so.. it would surely be a nice thing to ask transgaming what they think about this hole LGPL "core" story. having transgaming, codeweavers and all the "might be future wine" versions using the same core is surely in our advantage. ( and in theirs too ) it would boost develepment of the wine "core" by "i don't know how many percent" !! and it also make's sure that most thinks will stay compatible. right now, wineX can not submit some patches directly to wine because both core's are becoming incompatible. Mark Hannessen _______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@winehq.com http://www.winehq.com/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
